Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13255 of 2012. Case: Satya Pal Anand Vs Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society and Ors.. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13255 of 2012|
|Party Name:||Satya Pal Anand Vs Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Party-in-Person and For Respondents: Arjun Garg, Mishra Saurabh, Somanath Padhan, Satyajit A. Desai and Anagha S. Desai, Advs.|
|Judges:||P. Sathasivam and J. Chelameswar, JJ.|
|Issue:||Indian Contract Act, 1872; Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act - Section 64, Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act - Section 77; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 40 Rule 1|
|Citation:||2013 (VIII) AD (SC) 628, 2013 (5) AWC 4587 SC, 2013 (9) SCALE 355, 2013 (7) SCC 559, 2013 (3) WLN 56|
|Judgement Date:||July 17, 2013|
J. Chelameswar, J.
This petition arises out of the final judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 14548 of 2008 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
It is rather difficult to cull out the facts accurately because of the inadequacy of the record. Be that as it may, the broad and undisputed facts are as under:
The Petitioner's mother was allotted a plot of land (hereinafter referred to as 'the property in dispute') by the first Respondent - the Punjabi Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Pursuant to such an allotment, the sale-deed dated 22.03.1962 came to be executed, which deed was registered on 30.03.1962 before the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal. It appears that the Petitioner's mother died on 12.06.1988. The Petitioner claims to be the sole successor-in-interest though we find from the record (from the alleged compromise deed dated 06.07.2004 executed by the Petitioner herein) that he has a sister.
It appears that after lapse of about 40 years, the first Respondent purported to have cancelled the sale made in favour of the Petitioner's deceased mother. On 09.08.2001, a deed styled as Extinguishment Deed came to be executed by the first Respondent before the Sub-Registrar, Bhopal - the legality of which deed is required to be examined separately. However, we do not propose to say anything at this stage.
Subsequently, the first Respondent executed another sale deed with respect to the property in dispute in favour of the second Respondent on 21.04.2004.
A document styled as Compromise Deed dated 06.07.2004 came to be executed by the Petitioner herein, the substance of which is that the Petitioner agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- only and put an end to all the disputes in respect of the disputed property. It appears from the recital of the document that out of the abovementioned amount, a sum of Rs. 4.50,000/- was paid by draft issued by the State Bank of Indore, Bhopal Branch and the balance by a post dated cheque. We may state here that the Petitioner does not dispute either the execution of the abovementioned document or the receipt of the abovementioned amounts. As it can be seen from the synopsis filed in this appeal at page 'J', it is stated as follows:
Amount was not returned as the Petitioner had been advised by the learned advocates having expertise in civil litigation and of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 that the agreement secured upon misrepresentation & upon the facts in...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL